Sir,
In addressing to you the following
remarks upon a pamphlet recently put forth by you, under the
title of “Subscription the Disgrace of the English
Church,” I think it right to explain the reasons which
have induced me to give them publication, rather than to
communicate them in a private form, and also why I have not taken
this step some days earlier.
The fact is, that till within the last three days, I had seen
nothing of your pamphlet beyond the title; neither do I think
that I should then have been tempted to peruse its contents, so
repulsive did its announcement appear, had I not received an
intimation that my name was mentioned in connection with your
former publication, in such terms as to create some suspicion
that I might countenance your opinions and views, and to require
from me a declaration how far I might concur in believing
Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles a disgrace. This
information could not fail to excite in me some degree of surprise and
curiosity, feeling, as I did, unconscious of having made to you,
either publicly or privately, any observation whatever in
reference to that or to any other of your publications.
On reading the paragraph in your pamphlet in which my name is
introduced, it did not occur to me, that, supposing I had been
one of those “clergymen in the diocese of Norwich, who had
made comments upon your last publication,” you intended
anything more than to speak of me in complimentary terms.
Feeling conscious, however, that I could not take to myself that
compliment, for the reasons already stated, and that it had been
more than hinted to me, that my name being so introduced placed
me in an equivocal position, in which some explanation would be
expected, I laid the paragraph, together with the fact, before a
clerical friend, who gave his opinion, that it certainly did
admit of a doubt, how far I might have coincided in, or differed
from, your views of Subscription, as stated in your last
publication.
Now, if your observations had merely concerned myself
personally, I might not have thought this accidental circumstance
worthy of notice; at least I should have refrained from drawing
public attention to a matter of a private nature. But as I
conceive that the character of a clergyman, whether as it regards
his flock, or the church, ought not to appear in an ambiguous
light, and as I have always, both publicly and privately
maintained opinions the directly opposite of those which you have
advocated in several publications, it would justly be considered an
abandonment of duty, were I, from an ill-timed silence, to allow
it to be suspected that I side with the opinions which you
entertain in the matter of Subscription.
Under these circumstances and impressions, I have no course
but to sacrifice my natural disinclination to make myself a
public character, particularly when, in that character, I must
necessarily assume somewhat of a controversialist, and when there
is connected with the subject much both of a painful and of a
delicate nature: I therefore hesitate not to comply with my
duty.
Although such reasons for the course which I am about to take
apply only to myself, yet if every clergyman in the diocese chose
to dispute your allegations generally, and to repudiate your
imputations in particular, it would be quite competent to him,
individually, to make his public defence.
Before I enter on the main subject of your pamphlet, one word
of further explanation will be necessary upon the personal matter
between us.
At page 43, you say—
“I have now only to acknowledge the comments
of several clergymen and others in this diocese, upon my last
publication. To the Rev. B. Philpot, formerly archdeacon of
the Isle of Man, and to the Rev. C. Green, rector of Burgh, I beg
to offer my sincere thanks for the candid and christian spirit in
which their observations were made. I avail myself also of
this opportunity to acknowledge with respect and gratitude a large number
of private communications, both from friends and strangers, which
were a valuable testimony at a time when they were most
acceptable.”
In answer to what concerns me, I repeat that I neither
publicly nor privately to you ever made any comment or
observation whatever upon your last publication; and that, if to
others I may have alluded to it, it was in terms of
disapprobation and with feelings of regret.
I now proceed to a discussion of your pamphlet, which will
give me an opportunity of satisfying those, who may wish to know,
how far I concur in your opinions and views; and I trust I shall
not express myself otherwise, than in that “candid and
christian spirit,” for which, by anticipation, you have
already given me credit.
The title of the pamphlet is a true index of what may be found
within. Indeed, the contents may be reduced to Proposition and Corollary.
Proposition: “Subscription the Disgrace of the
English Church.”
Corollary: “Repeal of the present form of
Subscription.”
These in turn shall have my best consideration. The
Proposition you attempt to establish by various suppositions and
allegations. A grave charge, which strikes at the very
foundation of our church establishment, like that involved in
this proposition, should not be grounded on suppositions, the
force of which must depend on their degree of probability, which
is always questionable, but should rest solely upon proven and admitted
facts. Indeed, in a matter of such moment as that, which
you appear extremely anxious to substantiate, all other reasoning
but from facts alone must be excluded. I therefore humbly
submit, that the opinions which you appear to have collected from
“Newspapers, Periodicals,” and “Commercial
Travellers’ Rooms,” must be rejected as inadmissible
in the present consideration; for the articles in newspapers and
periodicals, of a controversial nature especially, being
generally got up to serve some party purpose, are too often
limited to a partial and one-sided view of things; and I have yet
to learn that commercial travellers’ rooms, however
proverbial for practical information and good sense, have become
schools of sound theology. For the same reason, we must
pass by the suppositious questions of “youthful
profligates, led on by some ingenious sceptic;” also,
“the obvious reasoning of the dissenting part of our
population,” and the notions of “a still larger
class, who, amidst the din of controversy, pick up a few popular
reports, which help to confirm their indifference to
religion.” We must likewise dismiss from our
consideration your analogical reasoning, from the case of the
Officers of the Army and Navy to that of the Clergy, and from the
“Articles of War” to the “Confession of our
Faith.” For reasoning of this sort, to be valid, must
be founded upon cases analogous; and what analogy exists between
the “Articles of War,” which depend on ever-varying
expediency and annual revision, and the “Confession of our
Faith,” which is based on the never-changing word of truth? [8] Some analogy there may be between
Officers of the Army and Navy, who for dishonorable conduct are
dismissed the service by court-martial, and the Clergy who hold
opinions contrary to their Subscription. But I forbear to
animadvert on that comparison.
Therefore I think you must allow that, in a demonstration of
such moment, as that “Subscription is the Disgrace of the
English Church,” we cannot admit suppositions, assertions,
and notions, but that we must have stern facts.
Is it then the fact, that “while we perceive the variety
of opinion prevailing amongst these several sections (of the
clergy,) we see also that from all of them, more or less,
Subscription is requiring that which, in the ordinary affairs of
life, high-minded men would abstain from; viz. the necessity for
qualifying the plain and straight-forward use of
language?”
If you succeed in establishing this position, then I shall be
ready to acknowledge that there is treachery within the pale of
our Church—widely-extended treachery, and that you will
have gone far towards maintaining that “Subscription is the
Disgrace of the English Church;” or, to put the proposition
more logically, that the Clergy thus subscribing and acting
are the disgrace of the English Church.
It will now be necessary to extract in full from your pamphlet
those allegations upon which alone your position depends, in
order that the truth of them may be canvassed, and the foundation
of your charge made perfectly clear to my readers.
In pages 11 to 14, you say—
(1) “Subscription alone is now in
view; and while that remains as it is, and English words retain
their meaning, and an English history of facts can be found, and
any clear apprehension of the meaning of truth remains with us,
the perversion of our Form of Subscription, and the
misrepresentation of our Articles, attempted by any who argue
that they were not intended to condemn Romanism, whether as held
before or after the Council of Trent, ought to excite, in every
honest mind, an indignation which it is a virtue to feel and a
duty to express. If it be questioned where such views have
been advanced, it is sufficient to refer to Tract No. 90, now
before the writer of these pages, though other instances might be
cited from authors who have subscribed the Articles.
(2) “If we turn to another section of the English
clergy, that most opposed to the views of the tractarians,
however they command our respect from their piety, and zeal, and
hearty attachment to Scriptural truth and sound doctrine; yet
some of them cannot be esteemed clear of all blame on the
question now considered. The writer can here speak from
personal knowledge. In their views as to baptismal
regeneration, certainly opposed to the strict language of our
formularies; in their dislike of other parts of our services, and sometimes
in the disuse or change of certain terms, is to be found a proof
that to them Subscription is not altogether satisfactory; and the
often-avowed concession, that the excellence of our system of
doctrine and worship, as a whole, reconciles their minds
to some imperfections, is enough to show that, in subscribing,
some violence is done to simple truth. They argue, and
justly, that no human work can literally demand an unqualified
approbation, but our Subscription does require it. Such
arguments, then, cannot be altogether satisfactory to him who
uses them, or to many to whom they may be offered; and truth, it
cannot be denied, is to some extent dishonored and damaged in
their use.
(3) “In that section again of subscribers who
embrace Calvinistic doctrines, though the writer considers that
some of the Articles are more unequivocally favorable to them
than their opponents, yet it cannot be forgotten how frequently
and decidedly it has been declared, ex cathedrâ, that
theirs are not the doctrines of the Church of England.
(4) “Another large section of the English clergy
may be now comprised under the name of old-fashioned
high-churchmen; and of that title, it is believed, they will not
themselves complain. Many of them would gladly extract the
honey from the tractarian school, without sufficiently
considering how poisonous the plant whose growth they are to some
extent fostering. They insist often on an exact compliance
with Rubrics, and must forgive me for saying that few amongst
them have fulfilled these in their own practice. Till very
lately, it would indeed be difficult to find many clergymen, or
one bishop, within the last fifty years, who have strictly
observed the Rubrics—still less the Canons. Some of
them speak also of a literal Subscription; but here again the writer
can of his own knowledge state, that numbers claim and use a
considerable latitude in subscribing, and are satisfied with
asserting their general attachment to the Formularies of
the Church. Of their Arminian views as to doctrine, it is
hardly necessary to call to mind how much they are opposed to
others amongst their brethren, and, in the writer’s
judgment, to the Articles themselves.
(5) “In another section may be comprised those who
desire improvement in many things relating to the spiritual
affairs of our Church. Some have openly expressed this
desire; a far larger number cherish it in silence. They who
have spoken out have strongly stated their conviction, that a
Church, without the means of even entering upon deliberation as
to one general improvement in its spiritual concerns, is in a
false and unscriptural position. With respect to the Forms
of Subscription and the interpretation of the Articles, some have
formally requested a change, or rather an authoritative solution
of the many doubts and uncertainties which now embarrass the
question.”
Having adduced these allegations in support of your position,
in which you endeavor to implicate every section (as your term
is) of the English clergy, in a culpable act in the matter of
Subscription; you then draw the inference, that by far the
greater portion of the clergy in the several
“sections,” have tampered with their ordination vow;
and finally, you come to the conclusion, or rather, as if
doubting, whether you had so far succeeded as to arrive at a
legitimate conclusion, you put the question, whether the
affirmation is too strong, that “Subscription is the
Disgrace of the English Church.”
“Thus while we perceive the variety of opinion
prevailing amongst these several sections—a variety which,
were it not impeded by Subscription, would find a harmless or
beneficial vent in a free inquiry after Scriptural truth—we
see also that from all of them, more or less, Subscription is
requiring that which, in the ordinary affairs of life,
high-minded men would abstain from; namely, the necessity for
qualifying the plain and straight-forward use of language.
Is this a condition favorable to the reputation of teachers of
truth; and is it too strong a conclusion, at least from some
parts of the above account, to affirm, that Subscription is the
disgrace of the English Church?”
I shall now proceed to examine and discuss your allegations
seriatim, and see how far they are founded in fact; after
which I shall adduce evidence of a counter tendency, arising from
a personal knowledge of facts, and an intimate acquaintance with
the opinions of individual clergy.
(1) In the first paragraph, you alledge that our form of
Subscription has been perverted and our Articles misrepresented
by persons “who argue that they were not intended to
condemn Romanism;” and, in proof of this, you “think
it sufficient to refer to Tract No. 90, though,” as you
state, “other instances might be cited from authors who
have subscribed the Articles.”
Now, as “one swallow does not make a summer,” so
neither does one individual, nor several, (and I believe they are
not many altogether, who hold with Tract No. 90,) constitute in
that particular, a general “perversion of our Form of
Subscription,” or a general “misrepresentation
of our Articles.” I am not ignorant that it has been
the common prejudice to stamp as a tractarian every man who avows
that he upholds generally the Apostolical Succession, and
Baptismal Regeneration, has lately seen it right to have divine
service in his church during Lent, and at other times appointed
by the Rubric, and especially if he preach in a surplice,
although he may differ from Tract No. 90, and its principles, as
widely as possible. And I cannot help thinking that you
have been carried away by this mistaken notion. But look
calmly and impartially around, and say from your own knowledge
how many are the clergy in the diocese of Norwich, who
countenance the principles of Tract Nos. 90, or 85, or 80, or
indeed other tracts, which may be repugnant to the doctrines of
our church: are there three? are there two? or one? But if
I grant you that there are half-a-dozen, (and except in argument
I would not allow so many,) considering that in the diocese there
are upwards of eight hundred clergy, it will little avail
you.
(2) In the next paragraph, which embraces that
“section of the clergy most opposed to the views of the
Tractarians, you speak from personal knowledge;” and you
say, “in their views as to Baptismal Regeneration,
certainly opposed to the strict language of our Formularies; in
their dislike of other parts of our services, and sometimes in
their disuse of certain terms, is to be found a proof that to
them Subscription is not altogether satisfactory.” I
do not deny that there may be among that body of the clergy some
who do not admit Baptismal Regeneration, according to the strict
language of our Formularies: but I believe they are by no means
so numerous as you would have it inferred. I can affirm,
from personal knowledge, that some of that party do hold that
doctrine strictly in accordance with the church, and that I
scarcely know one who does not admit it, at least in a modified
sense. You are aware that the word
“regeneration,” instead of being restricted to
Baptism, as it is in our Articles and Liturgy, and, as I believe,
also in the New Testament, has, by many divines as well as
others, long been used in a looser signification, to denote
“conversion,” “renovation,” &c.,
which may be necessary after Baptism. Hence there is reason
to think that frequently the difference is more in name than in
reality. I can also state positively that, upon this point,
within very few years, the views of many amongst this party have
undergone considerable change, and closely approximated to those
of the church. If, however, upon one of the most difficult
and abstruse doctrines of Christianity there should be shades of
opinion, it is only to be expected; considering that all have not
equally faith to receive, or the capacity to comprehend the
“things hard to be understood.” Neither do I
think it quite charitable to set down this circumstance to their
“disgrace,” or to that of the church of which they
are ministers. “Who art thou that judgest another
man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or
falleth.” [14] Moreover, in this neighborhood, I
am acquainted with several of the clergy, who would probably rank
themselves under this “section,” who are not behind any of
their neighbors in the exact observance of the Liturgy.
With regard to those “Subscribers who embrace
Calvinistic doctrines,” any comment of mine would be
superfluous, as it is clear, from the tenor of your observations,
that you are ready to defend their view of the
Articles.
We now come to a section of the clergy whom you denominate
“old-fashioned high-churchmen.” Your main
charge against these is, that whilst “they insist often on
an exact compliance with Rubrics,” few amongst them have
fulfilled these in their own practice. The supposition of
error attaching to them in their “Arminian views of
doctrine,” being matter of private opinion, may be
dismissed as irrelevant. The charge, then, may be regarded
as a default in Rubrical practice. This accusation,
however, is of the less importance, as it is not contended,
neither indeed can be, that there exists in the clergy a
conscientious objection to a compliance with any of the Rubrical
directions—only that “few amongst them have fulfilled
these in their own practice.” And thus much is fully
conceded.
If it were material to the point, it would be no difficult
task, in extenuation of those who deviate from the strict letter
of the Rubric, to prove that the Rubrics are not always definite,
and frequently admit of a variety of construction—that to a
certain extent the church accords to its ministers a
discretionary judgment in this as in all other things—that
at the present time there exists a prevailing disposition
to revive much which has fallen into desuetude, and an earnest
desire to carry out the Rubrics in all their practical
utility—and consequently, that there is notwithstanding a
great deal of honest and upright practice. But your charge
affects not the clergy, but Subscription. It will therefore
be a sufficient answer, to refer you to Article 34, in which it
is stated—that “every particular or national church
hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish
ceremonies or rites of the church, ordained only by
man’s authority,” in order to remind you that,
without having recourse to that measure, which in the sequel you
propound, the church does possess a provision to abrogate
or enact, whenever it may be deemed by the legislature expedient
to direct the Convocation to proceed with that business.
(5) In the last “section” of the clergy,
whose views you notice, I see nothing in the slightest degree
inconsistent with their Subscription. Surely, according to
Article 20, which states that “the church hath power to
decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of
faith,” it is quite competent for any clergyman to state
strongly his conviction, that a church, without even the power of
entering upon the means of deliberation as to one general
improvement in its spiritual concerns, is in a false and
unscriptural position. The summoning of convocation rests
with the legislature, and not with the church, and is a matter of
expediency upon which every individual clergyman may entertain
his own opinion.
I have
now carefully, and for my readers I fear too tediously, gone
through your allegations; but as I conceived that your
proposition depended solely upon their being supported and
established by facts, I trust I shall be excused if I have made a
point of examining them with that patience and candor, which I
thought their importance demanded.
I find then, that, because an indefinitely small number of the
clergy in every diocese may agree with the author of Tract
No. 90,—because a portion of a certain
“section” of the clergy possibly do not hold
Baptismal Regeneration in strict accordance with the Articles and
Liturgy—because some incline to Calvinistic, some to
Arminian views of doctrine—because, in practice, an exact
conformity to the Rubrics does not obtain, notwithstanding that
in the 34th article express provision is made to meet this case
in all its bearings, and because, in accordance with the 20th
article, certain persons avow that a church, without the means of
deliberation, is in a false and unscriptural
position—Therefore “Subscription is the
Disgrace of the English Church.”
Such is the conclusion at which you arrive from your
premises—a conclusion, in my humble opinion, so slightly
supported by fact, that I can hardly bring myself to think, but
that, if there had not existed a strong propension, a
predetermination to come at this result, your judgment would have
rejected the evidence as totally insufficient to support it.
I now
proceed to adduce evidence of a counter-tendency, arising from a
personal knowledge of facts, and an intimate acquaintance with
the opinions of individual clergy.
In 1838 I preached at Yarmouth before the Lord Bishop of
Norwich, yourself, and a numerous body of the Clergy residing in
the two adjoining Deaneries, a Sermon, in which I delivered the
following sentences, viz.—
“By God’s providence, my Reverend
Brethren, we have been ordained ministers ‘of that pure and
reformed part of Christ’s church established in this
kingdom,’ which, from the deepest conviction, we believe to
be ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone;’ and in
obedience to her authority, and in conformity with her Articles
and Liturgy, we have pledged ourselves to discharge the functions
of our ministry.
“I have been ordained to ‘administer the doctrine
and sacraments and discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath
commanded, and as this church and realm hath received the
same.’ And, until I am convinced that she is in
error—that her Articles or her Liturgy contain
‘things which are neither read in scripture, nor may be
proved thereby,’ as a minister of the Church of England, I
may not indulge in speculations of my own imagination, or perform
her offices in ways and modes of my own devising, but I must
labor for the edification and salvation of the souls entrusted to
my care, according to the laws, the regulations, and the spirit
of the Church of England, which is the Church of Christ.
When I can no longer do so conscientiously, it will then become
me no longer to appropriate her emoluments.
“But revering and loving her doctrine, and approving her
discipline, I can well repose myself under her guidance and
administration. These, my Reverend Brethren, I may venture
to hope, are equally the sentiments of us all.”
Whatever might be the individual opinion entertained of the
obligations under which, on that occasion, I apprehended myself
and all ministers of the Gospel to be, or of the sentiments which
I expressed in regard to those obligations,—the Sermon,
containing this acknowledgment of our ministerial engagements,
and this expression of corresponding sentiments, was requested by
the assemblage then present, without a dissentient voice, to be
printed; and I think the charitable inference is, that each
individual sanctioned with his approbation the sentiments
delivered in that discourse.
If this construction upon their unanimous act be correct, the
accidental publication of this Sermon will go far to exonerate
the parties then present from the imputation of disingenuous
Subscription, which, I must needs think, in your general remarks,
you have endeavoured to attach to them.
But so far as it concerns my neighbours, I have yet something
more certain than a fair and presumptive inference to
advance. My personal intimacy with many of the Clergy
around me, enables me to add my belief that these sentiments
are theirs, equally as mine. And if this be true of
the Clergy in one district taken indiscriminately, why should
they not be the opinions of the Clergy of other deaneries and
other dioceses? Until you can give me positive proof to the
contrary, I shall charitably presume that they are so; and leave
you to reconcile with fact the following extraordinary, and to me
unaccountable, assertion:—
“Subscription, instead of being the tie
which is to bind people to certain opinions or truths, is become
a rope of sand. So uncertain is the trumpet’s sound,
that it no longer, as of old, proclaims the spirit of an united
host, but turns every man’s sword against his fellow: and
Englishmen must soon awake to the conviction that Subscription,
according to the plain meaning of the words, is blown to the
winds, and become the disgrace and not the safeguard of the
English Church.”
Under ordinary circumstances it would seem sufficient to have
made a general statement in regard to Subscription, but as you
have particularised three several points to which you take
exception in the matter of Subscription, it might appear uncandid
to pass them over without more especial comment.
These points will be best given in your own words:—
“I still maintain—
“That the condemnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed,
in their literal sense, are an un-christian appendage to a
document of extraordinary merit, yet such that a true Christian
may innocently differ from some propositions set forth in it.
“That a Bishop is not authorized by the Gospel to
address a candidate for Ordination in the literal sense of the
words, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost
remit, they are remitted, and whose sins thou dost retain, they
are retained.’
“That a Christian minister is not authorized by the
Gospel to address any one in the literal sense of the words,
‘I absolve thee from all thy sins.’”
I am not sure that I understand your precise meaning in the
expression, the “literal sense;” but I will not
shrink from stating distinctly the sense in which I subscribed,
and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, other Clergymen
subscribe to these points.
Scripture itself is not always interpreted in a strictly
“literal sense.”—Witness a great part of the
sixth chapter of St. John. But in the interpretation of a
particular passage, regard must be had to all the circumstances
and considerations connected with it. The same observation,
I apprehend, applies in ascertaining the meaning of the Articles
and Liturgy.
Now whoever subscribes to the Athanasian Creed, subscribes to
it in conjunction with the Thirty-nine Articles: and the 6th
Article states that “Holy Scripture containeth all things
necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein,
nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that
it should be believed as an Article of Faith.” By the
standard of Scripture, then, we are bound to try every clause of
the Athanasian Creed, and every other subject of Subscription,
before we embrace it as an article of faith. And thus, the
condemnatory clauses of that Creed are to be understood and
received in perfect agreement with the Scripture. And to satisfy
ourselves of their true sense we must have recourse to the Source
of Truth. Then, are these clauses of universal or of
limited application? Our Saviour’s words
are—“He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” [22a] And to ascertain the extent of
the condemnation herein denounced against unbelievers, we must
compare the passage with others evidently to be taken in
conjunction with it. First, the words of our
Saviour—“That servant who knew his Lord’s will,
and prepared not himself, neither did according to His will,
shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not,
neither did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with
few stripes.” [22b] Secondly,
the declaration of St. Paul—“Now we know, that what
things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the
law.” [22c] Hence we learn that our
Saviour’s words in St. Mark are to be understood with this
limitation, viz. “he that” hath the means and
opportunities of believing the Gospel, and “believeth not
shall be damned.” At the same time, to show that
“there is no respect of persons with God,” whether
Jew or Gentile, St. Paul expressly declares with reference to
those who sin without revelation, “As many as have sinned
without law, shall also perish without law.” [22d]
Hence we are bound, I think, to receive the condemnatory
clauses of the Athanasian Creed in the same sense and with the same
limitation as our Saviour’s words in St. Mark. They
are declaratory of God’s revelation respecting those who
have the means and opportunities of believing the saving truths
of the Gospel, and yet do not believe. “This is the
condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men have
chosen darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
evil.” [23]
(2) Now, in regard to the Absolution in the Visitation
of the Sick, the same rule of interpretation is to be
applied. If the words, “I absolve thee from all thy
sins,” were taken to convey to a fellow-creature an
absolute pardon of sins committed against God as unreservedly as
we may forgive his offences committed against ourselves, this
construction would appear to invest us with an authority which
every priest is sensible that he does not possess.
“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Whatever
therefore be the signification of the words in this Absolution,
we are certain they must be so understood as to harmonize with
Scripture, which declares the forgiveness or remission of sins to
be conditional. Faith and repentance are the conditions,
and baptism the outward mean, whereby the forgiveness of sins is
formally and legally made over to the worthy recipient.
Acts II. 38, and VIII. 37. In accordance with these
conditions, the Absolution in both the Daily and the Communion
Service is framed; and in both places the priest pronounces
pardon and absolution “to those who truly repent and
unfeignedly believe,” agreeably to the Covenant of
Baptism. And the authority on which he professes to do
this, is—that “God hath given power and commandment
to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his
people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their
Sins.” Hence, in these two cases, the office of the
priest is clearly ministerial. If now we would
reconcile the words in the other Absolution with the plain
intention of Scripture, we have only to apply to the Liturgy the
Apostolic Canon, which we ever adopt in the interpretation of
Scripture—“Comparing things spiritual with
spiritual,” and compare the latter Absolution with the two
former, and we have no difficulty in convincing ourselves that
the words, “I absolve thee from all thy sins,”
(whenever it may be a point of duty to use them, viz.
“if the sick person humbly and heartily desire it,”
and having “made an especial confession of his
sins,”) are pronounced ministerially and
conditionally.
Take lastly the case in the Ordination of Priests. This
consists of two parts:—
(1) “Receive the Holy Ghost, for
the office and work of a Priest in the church of God, now
committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.”
(2) “Whose sins thou dost
forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they
are retained.”
(1) The authority on which a Bishop addresses these
words to a Candidate for Ordination is derived through the
Apostolical Succession. They are the words in which our
blessed Lord thought good to invest his Apostles with their
ministerial authority; and there is strong ground for believing,
that the first Bishops received from the Apostles, upon whom
Christ built his church, the like authority in the same form of
words, and so handed it down to their successors. Some
formula for Ordination there must be, as of baptism; and though
the one is a sacrament and the other is not, my faith teaches me,
that “where two or three are met together in God’s
name,” in any Godly work, “there is He in the midst
of them.” I would therefore humbly and piously hope,
that in such a holy work as the Ordination of weak and frail men
for the great and responsible office of the ministry, He will
vouchsafe to be present with His church; and after care duly
taken by the Bishop to “lay hands suddenly on no
man,” the solemn vows sincerely taken upon himself by the
candidate, the earnest prayers of the congregation, the pious
invocation of the Holy Ghost “to inspire the souls”
and “visit the hearts” of those engaged in the sacred
investiture—upon a candidate so truly called, and so
dedicated to the ministry, I would devoutly trust that God would
be pleased to pour down a portion of the sanctifying Spirit, by
the laying on of hands.
(2) With regard to the second part of this
formula—“whosesoever sins ye remit, they are
remitted,” &c. It is generally admitted that one
meaning of these words applies to Ecclesiastical Censures, in
reference to the members of any Church who may have committed
scandalous offences and incorrigible misdemeanours. [25] And comparing them with Matthew XVIII. 16, 17, 18, it seems almost
impossible but to conclude that, in one sense, they relate to
those matters. If this were the only signification, there
would be no perplexity. But the words most probably have
another reference—a reference to sins, as they are
committed against God. And herein I apprehend lies the
difficulty. To arrive at a satisfactory solution of this,
we have only to consider (supposing the Priest to be endued with
authority to remit and retain sins in a spiritual sense) the
occasion on which he is called upon to exercise that
function. Clearly, in pronouncing the Absolution, wherein
he declares remission of sins to those who truly repent and
unfeignedly believe. And although, in the Absolution, he
declares not the counterpart of the sentence, yet he has equally
authority to pronounce, that the sins of those who do not repent
and believe, will be retained by God.
It has, I conceive, been demonstrated that the Clergy, with
comparatively few exceptions, do not subscribe otherwise than
ex animo, and by consequence disproved that they are the
disgrace of the English Church, in that respect, at least, or, as
you invert the proposition, that “Subscription is the
Disgrace of the English Church;” it therefore might seem
superfluous to discuss the Corollary, which falls to the
ground as a consequence. But as there is reason to doubt
whether you intend the alteration of Subscription, strictly as a
Corollary dependent on the previous problem, or as itself a
distinct proposition, offering a substantial improvement in the
Constitution of our Church, it may be worth while to investigate
the matter further.
You
propose then, next, “the repeal of the present form of
Subscription;” and instead thereof, “Subscription to
the three Creeds, and an engagement to conform to the
Liturgy:” and you add, that “assent to the doctrines
of the Creeds would be almost Catholic.”—Would
it? Could you subscribe to the three Creeds, or
engage to conform to the Liturgy, without some modification or
limitation? You declare that you still cannot accept, in
the “literal sense,” either the Condemnatory Clauses
of the Athanasian Creed, or the Absolution in “the
Visitation of the Sick,” or the formula in “the
Ordering of Priests;” and in your former publication,
entitled “What is the Meaning of
Subscription?” you stated that “you were not
contented to take them otherwise than in a ‘literal
sense,’ without a declaration from Authority that they are
not strictly to be so taken; and you went so far as to offer to
resign your preferment, if called upon so to do by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, unless in the meantime you obtained relief in that
respect.” [27] Supposing therefore the changes
made; in this dilemma, how would your case be affected by them,
one way or the other, without an authorised interpretation also,
which should be satisfactory to you? But supposing further,
that you obtained everything which would satisfy yourself and
some thirty-five others who united with you in 1840 in a Petition
to the House of Lords, how could the Arian and the Socinian
subscribe to the Athanasian Creed with a safer conscience then,
than now? Could those who deny Baptismal Regeneration
repeat, “I believe in one baptism for the remission of
sins,” in the Nicene Creed? Would the “Three
Denominations” feel quite easy in repeating “I
believe in One Catholic and Apostolic Church,” in the
Nicene Creed, and cordially unite with our Church in maintaining
the present Three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons?
Would the Romanists be contented to reduce their tenets within
the Confessions of the three Creeds, and confine their Services
to our Ritual? It is really difficult to think you serious,
when you say, that “assent to the doctrines of the Creeds
would be almost Catholic.” But we will proceed; for
the subject deserves grave consideration.
To maintain that your proposed alterations would insure
anything like “Catholic assent,” promote union among
Christians, and advance the growth of vital religion, is to
contradict Catholic experience, derived from undoubted
history. Do we not read of schisms in the Corinthian
Church, even in the days of their Apostle, when the Confession of
Faith must have been in the simplest form? And do we not
find him sharply rebuking the Corinthian converts—“I
hear there be divisions among you, and I partly believe
it?” [28] Has not St. John left on record
the extraordinary caution which he thought necessary, to guard
the disciples against the errors of Gnosticism, which, in his
time, were infesting the Church? Again, the history of the
three Creeds is but an account of the rise and progress of the
Gnostic, the Sabellian, the Arian, and the Socinian heresies,
which successively sprung up, the former without, the three
latter within the Church, and of the means devised and adopted to
counteract them. Moreover, it is capable of proof, that
every singular Article in the three Creeds, has application to
some error at the time prevailing. [29] The history of
the thirty-nine Articles is too well known to require more than
the mention of them. They were drawn up designedly and
expressly to exclude from the Reformed Church of England all
those who still might adhere to the Romish faith.
Thus, then, we see, that when the Confession of faith was in
the simplest form, the Church of Christ was not free from schism;
and that Creeds and Articles of Faith were invariably the
effects, and not the causes, of heresies.
But besides a retrospective glance at the past, it may not be
altogether foreign from the consideration, to take a speculative
view of the future results which would probably ensue, upon the
Subscription being reduced to the three Creeds. It is often
the best mode of trying a proposition, to suppose the thing done,
and to follow it out into its obvious consequences.
Suppose, then, Subscription reduced to the three Creeds.
The first question which suggests itself is—How would this
affect our two Universities, from which the nation has long
derived “a supply of persons duly qualified to serve God,
both in Church and State?” If this
circumstance should open the door of admission to those eminent
schools of education so wide, as almost to insure the resort of
students essentially differing from the principles and doctrines
of the Church of England as now constituted, and thus render
probable a material change in the nature and mode of religious
instruction there communicated—I think the conclusion would
be inevitable, that the fabric of the Church of England, as at
present founded on the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner-stone, would be greatly
endangered; and consequently, that your proposition must be
rejected as a rash and hazardous experiment.
Now, although the Romanists would not join your Communion in
the altered form, it is certain that the Subscription to the
three Creeds would present no obstacle to their entrance into the
Universities, seeing that they do subscribe to them
already, and something more. Then it is more than
probable, that the mass of the dissenters would find the means of
introduction and admission into those seats of learning—not
even excepting the chairs of the Professors of Divinity.
And thus the Orthodox youth of the Church of England would no
longer enjoy the privilege of being educated exclusively and
securely in their own principles and in their own
Universities—a privilege, nay, a prerogative, asserted and
exercised by nonconformists of different denominations, in their
Academies founded for the tuition of youths of their own
communion, in their own principles of religion, and in agreement
with their
own peculiar views; but they would soon have to encounter, in
this new state of things, the conflict of discordant opinions, at
all times unfavorable to the growth of true religion, but
especially so in the ardent and restless period of youth.
In the year 1834, when the admission of persons into the
Universities, without regard to their religious opinions, was
urged with unprecedented zeal, Dr. Turton, now dean of
Westminster, then Regius Professor of Divinity in the University
of Cambridge, published some “Thoughts” on the
subject, which were so convincing to my mind of the utter
impracticability of that measure, that I must be permitted
briefly to refer to them. To shew what would be the
probable result of such a concession, he traced the operations of
an Establishment, which had been tried on a plan very similar, on
a scale sufficiently large, and for a time sufficiently long,
through its various stages during sixty years, to its ultimate
results. This Establishment was the well-known Academy
which Dr. Doddridge instituted at Northampton, and which his
successor removed to Daventry. The leading facts relating
to this Institution, are, that its founder was a learned,
talented, and in the main, orthodox divine, but a zealous
non-conformist—that its “constitution was perfectly
Catholic,” in other words, that students of any sect in
religion were admissible—that the instruction was required
to be taught according to the principles laid down in the
Assembly’s Catechism—and that, after declining
thirty-eight years under three successive tutors, after
Dr. Doddridge, “holding the balance” (according to
Mr. Robert Hall, a non-conformist,) “betwixt contending
systems, without betraying the slightest emotion of antipathy to
error, or predilection for truth,” it finally sank into
Modern Unitarianism, under Mr. Belsham in 1789.
Upon an impartial view of the case, Dr. Turton attributes all
the evil resulting from the system, to “laxness in the
terms of Admission,” in the first instance, which
afterwards led to a faulty mode of teaching Theology. And
justly he remarks, “we have seen the effects of great
diversity of belief at Daventry, and we may rely upon it that
those effects were not accidental; they were such as will always
be produced by the same cause.”
Here, then, we have an experiment before us, of a religious
establishment, on a sufficiently large scale, commencing under an
able, learned, and, in the main, Orthodox Divine, upon
“Catholic principles,” and terminating within
sixty years in the most disastrous consequences. The
circumstances of the Academy at Daventry, and of the two
Universities, under the new state of things, would obviously be
so nearly similar, that the result which was produced in the
former case, might with certainty be expected in the two
latter. If a similar trial should be made by relaxing the
present test, and thus enabling men of almost all shades of
opinion to enter at our Universities, infidelity would, in like
manner, be the result. And when the time shall arrive, that
the youth who are destined to supply the Ministry of the Church,
and to fill the Offices of State, shall no longer be grounded and
built up in the principles of “that pure and reformed part
of Christ’s Church, established in this kingdom,” but
shall be taught some system of belief, composed and modified out
of all the various and discordant elements of religion then
existing in those ancient and peaceful Institutions of
“sound learning and religious education,” the evil
consequences will be such as it requires no ordinary nerves to
contemplate.
Surely then the Church of England will pause ere she incline
to adopt your proposition, and exchange a certain good for a
certain evil.
Before I conclude, I have a few words to add in reference to
the publication of your pamphlet:—and first I would
observe, that if you have failed in the proof of your
proposition—if your allegations in the main stand
contradicted by facts—if there is every reason to believe
that the Clergy, although varying somewhat in matters
unimportant, do, with comparatively few exceptions, subscribe
ex animo to the Articles and Liturgy—I then leave
with you to determine, however you may “believe yourself
engaged in the cause of truth,” in what manner your
pamphlet is calculated to ascertain and promote it within the
Church of England. Whatever may be your determination on
this head, the judgment of the Clergy of this diocese, at least,
is condemnatory of the course which you have taken. They
feel that, for a period of years, from time to time, by your
publications, you have vexed the Church in general, and this
diocese in particular, troubled Israel, and given
occasion to the enemies of the Church to exult. In this
very pamphlet have you not described to us, in clear terms, what
must be the value of a clergyman’s ministry among his
flock, when his character for integrity—his honesty in his
ordination vow—is suspected? Have you not put into
the mouths of “some youthful profligates, led on by an
ingenious sceptic,” questions relating to the Clergy,
highly defamatory of their character as ministers of Christ, and
injurious to the best interests of religion? Do you not
suppose that your pamphlet has been perused by many who will
rejoice in turning it to the worst of purposes—the purposes
of infidelity—against the Clergy collectively, yourself
individually, and the religion of Christ generally? Do you
suppose that this publication has not been discussed in many
dissenting assemblies of this diocese, and exultingly responded
to—“Ah! so would we have it, so would we have
it?” Too much reason have the Clergy to say, in sorrow and
in sadness—“It is not an open enemy that has done us
this dishonor;” it is a brother—one of our own
order—a dignitary of our own Church, who is partaking of
the same bread—
This, you may say, is hard language.—“But is there
not a cause?” When I turn to the sentence,
“While we thus perceive the variety of opinion prevailing
amongst these several sections, we see also that from all
of them, more or less, Subscription is requiring that which, in
the ordinary affairs of life, high-minded men would abstain from,
viz. the necessity for qualifying the plain and
straight-forward use of language;” and when I find
you finally concluding, “In this state of things, I can
hardly imagine any diversity of opinion, with respect to the
Thirty-nine Articles, which calls for the resignation of a
Clergyman; indeed it appears to me, that it would be simply
absurd in any one to resort to such a step, unless under a
decided wish for communion with some other church or body of
christians”—I own that I am still startled at this
bold expression of opinion: and I confess that, after much
reflection, I have been at a loss to couch in softer terms, my
sense of this grave imputation, and of this deliberate avowal,
thus placed on record.
I have now finished a task in which I engaged with
reluctance. I trust that I have fairly and temperately gone
through the discussion of the subject; and I can aver that I have
carefully endeavored not to misunderstand or misrepresent any
thing which you have written. I hope, also, that I have
given an impartial consideration to whatever you have advanced in
support of your case: unfeignedly have I labored to investigate
the subject in all its bearings, and arrive at an unbiassed
result. How far I have succeeded in my object, others will
judge. This, however, I will affirm, that, in the discharge
of a public duty to which I have been unavoidably called, I have
been actuated by no motive of private consideration, and
especially by no unfriendly feeling towards yourself. And
in conclusion I will add that, if anything which I may have
advanced in explanation or in support of the present Subscription
to our Articles or Formularies, should happily have placed
the matter in a different and more satisfactory point of view, so
as to clear up your present doubt and perplexity, I should feel
more gratification and delight than I am able to express.
And I hope, by the blessing of that God whose providence
over-rules all things for good, this feeble effort may not be
without its use.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your sincere and faithful Servant,
CHARLES GREEN.
Burgh Castle,
8th July, 1843.
~~~~~~~~~
THE
END.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sloman,
Printer, King-Street, Yarmouth.